§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERI beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the rule laid down in the Board's Memorandum in December, 1904, that not more than two battleships were to be absent at any one time from the Channel Fleet for the purpose of refit has been abrogated; and, if so, for what reason has the change been made, and has any rule new been framed, in substitution for that which has been abrogated, laying down the number of battleships which may be absent from the 961 Channel Fleet at any one time for purposes of refit.
§ MR. MCKENNAThe Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. In reply to the second portion, the reason was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Lanark on 27th October. With regard to the last portion of the Question, no rule has been made, but the Commander-in-Chief is relied upon to assist in avoiding an accumulation of repairs.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERIs it open to the Commander-in-Chief to revert to the ancient practice of sending the whole of the Fleet into repairs at the same time, which was the ordinary practice until this Order was made?
§ MR. MCKENNAThat would not be regarded as a reasonable exercise of his discretion.
§ MR. MITCHELL-THOMSON (Lanarkshire, N.W.)asked whether the original rule which had been superseded in the case of the Channel Fleet was still applied in the case of the other Fleets.
§ MR. MCKENNAIt would depend in each case on the number of vessels available in the event of war. Where the number of ships in any fleet is only just sufficient, or barely sufficient, to meet war requirements, then, undoubtedly, the rule would apply. But where there is a superabundance of vessels, it is not necessary strictly to apply the rule.